Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat appealed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.01.2012 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Sessions Case No.46 of 2009, acquitting the respondent-accused Abhishek Dineshbhai Dafda for offences punishable under Sections 306, 452, 294(b) and 507 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the deceased Alpa, younger daughter of the complainant, had a love affair with the accused who resided in the same society. It was alleged that due to the nature of the accused, the deceased consumed poison and died. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove abetment of suicide. The High Court, in appeal under Section 378 CrPC, examined the evidence including the dying declaration and the testimony of witnesses. The court noted that the deceased in her dying declaration stated that she consumed poison due to quarrel with the accused, but there was no evidence of instigation or intentional aid. The court held that mere love affair and quarrel, without more, does not constitute abetment of suicide. The court also reiterated the limited scope of interference in appeals against acquittal, stating that unless the findings are perverse, the appellate court should not substitute its view. The High Court found that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was proper and the acquittal was justified. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Section 306 IPC - Ingredients of Abetment - The prosecution must prove that the accused instigated, provoked, or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide; mere love affair, quarrel, or abusive language does not constitute abetment unless there is direct or indirect act of instigation. Held that the trial court correctly found no evidence of instigation or mens rea (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Against Acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Scope of Interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal can interfere only if the trial court's findings are perverse, unreasonable, or based on no evidence; if two views are possible, the view favoring the accused must be upheld. Held that the trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and not perverse (Paras 5-9). C) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Credibility - The dying declaration of the deceased did not implicate the accused for abetment; it only stated that she consumed poison due to quarrel with the accused. Held that such statement does not prove instigation or abetment under Section 306 IPC (Paras 12-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 306, 452, 294(b) and 507 IPC was perverse and liable to be set aside in appeal under Section 378 CrPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.
Law Points
- Abetment of suicide requires direct or indirect act of instigation
- not mere quarrel or love affair
- Section 306 IPC
- Section 107 IPC
- Section 378 CrPC
- Standard of proof in appeal against acquittal
